Parents now liable for adult stepchild

By Sarah CrichtonJanuary 4 2003

Step-parents may be held financially liable for their partner's grown-up children even if the marriage ends, following a ground-breaking court ruling.

The full bench of the Family Court has ruled that such children have the same rights as biological children in claims for maintenance, meaning they can seek help for two purposes - education or disabled support.

In the case of a disabled child, the time limit for such support could technically be unlimited.

The precedent was set after a test case highlighted in the court's annual report as a significant development in case history.

The court, with the Chief Justice, Justice Alastair Nicholson, presiding, ruled that the Family Law Act does give the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court the power to order the same provisions for stepchildren.");document.write("

advertisement

");
}
}
// -->

The education criteria is usually interpreted to mean a first degree or formal tertiary qualification, although family lawyers say the interpretation can depend on the child's family background and parents' financial circumstances.

As with all Family Court cases, the identities of those involved are protected, but the case was mounted by a woman living in NSW known only as 'E', who turns 20 later this month.

In 1997, shortly before she turned 14, her mother died from cancer after having remarried four years earlier. The woman's stepfather, who lives in the ACT, had lived with her and her mother since 1991.

The woman sought maintenance from her natural father of $150 a week and the same amount from her stepfather, so that she could go to university.

She later reached an agreement with her natural father that he would pay her $50 a week.

The issue of whether she could pursue the claim from her stepfather was then referred to the full bench to determine whether the court had jurisdiction.

The stepfather's lawyer, George Brzostowski, argued that the law as drafted was unclear and did not spell out that step-parents could be liable in the same way as biological parents.

However, the court ruled that Parliament would have intended the same outcome for step-parents.

E's case will now go back before a federal magistrate to determine whether the stepfather should have to pay and, if so, how much.

Unlike cases of biological relationships, where a parent's obligation stands regardless, in cases involving stepchildren the magistrate must consider the quality of the relationship between the child and the stepfather.

No case has yet been put forward to test whether the law also stands for the children of de facto relationships.

Mr Brzostowski said the ruling raised a number of philosophical issues of which many potential step-parents would be unaware.

"You could have a situation where you assume responsibility for a healthy child but that child later becomes disabled and needs financial support which technically can continue until the step-parent retires or loses income," he said.

"The position seems particularly difficult if the step-child has rejected the step-parent for whatever reasons. If the marriage is over should you really have to have an ongoing financial obligation?

"Under one analysis, it's galling to think a person who may have emotionally rejected a step-parent can then turn around and legally require the step-parent to fund them financially - especially when the payment is then taxed against the step-parent."

Testing times

The woman at the centre of the case can be known only as 'E'. She turns 20 this month. The man who later became her stepfather began living with her mother in 1991 when E was aged eight. Two years later, the couple married. Weeks before E's 14th birthday, her mother died of cancer. In 2001, E sought maintenance of $150 a week from her father and the same amount from her stepfather. She later agreed to $50 a week from her father.